Until a municipality or water district establishes by-laws or other regulations authorizing officials to restrict water usage, the options available in a time of water shortage are only extremes: on one end of the spectrum, officials can request voluntary reduction of water use, and on the other, they can petition for the declaration of a state of emergency by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.  

A preferable, proactive approach involves multiple techniques that can be tied to local conditions and phased in as necessary to prevent a crisis and minimize environmental impact of peak season withdrawals.  Generally, such an approach is built on a legal framework that involves  four components: indicators, triggers, restriction measures, and enforcement.  The importance of the last component—enforcement—must not be underestimated.  Too many Massachusetts communities have water use restrictions on the books that are either not enforced, or not effective due to jurisdictional uncertainty, lack of political will, or lack of significant penalties.  

State entities also need to implement more aggressive drought response policies.  In 2007 the Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force waited to declare a drought until after many perennial streams had already dried up. The U.S. Drought Monitor  (http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html), updated weekly, indicated a “moderate drought” in Massachusetts in late August, long before the Drought Management Task Force finally issued a Drought Advisory on October 10, long after withdrawals in July, August and September had already depleted groundwater reserves that provide base flow to streams.

As a condition of their modified water withdrawal permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, both Danvers and Middleton have implemented a water use restriction system tied to streamflows in the Ipswich River.

17.a    Each water utility should define Peak Water Demand Indicators and associated conservation measures

Add Comment